Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:02:16 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.ORG>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: libkse*.a in 7.0 Message-ID: <20071211080216.pb3b95teoggko00o@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20071210223838.GB16598@VARK.MIT.EDU> References: <20071128211022.GA74762@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20071128213947.Q7555@fledge.watson.org> <20071210192533.GA15728@VARK.MIT.EDU> <20071210220854.07e02f1f@deskjail> <20071210223838.GB16598@VARK.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> (from Mon, 10 Dec 2007 =20 17:38:38 -0500): > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> Running Solaris 8/9 programs is not supported by SUN on Solaris 10. It >> works in some cases, but it doesn't work in some other cases. > > That's not true. It is supported. See: > http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/programs/abi/ > http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/programs/abi/sag.xml > > In theory, a SunOS 5.0 app will still work in SunOS 5.10 The important part is the "theory" word... I work in the office of SUN in Luxembourg, and one of our ideas for a =20 client was to run a Solaris 8/9 in a zone of a Solaris 10 as a =20 replacement for machines with Solaris 8/9. As we have a service =20 contract with our client, we have to take some business constraints =20 into account. And one of those business constraints is that Solaris =20 8/9 in a zone of Solaris 10 is not supported, as the kernel interface =20 (syscalls) changed in an incompatible way. > Of course, in practice, perfect binary compatibility is too much > to ask for. It's possible to write programs that notice that So far we handled this good in FreeBSD. > different releases aren't bug-for-bug compatible, and if you > statically link your binary or use unsupported ABIs, you break > their guarantee. But that's orthogonal to my original point. > >> And now >> some people work on using BrandZ (if you know nothing about it, it's >> sort of like our technology used to do our linuxulator or freebsd32 on >> amd64; that's not accurate, but is good enough for the point I want to >> make) to provide a Solaris 10 container (think about it as a jail on >> steroides) with an Solaris X (X < 10) image, so that people can install >> a Solaris 10 host and run Solaris X in it (like our linuxulator in a >> jail, but not as flexible as our linuxulator, theirs can not run on the >> main system like ours can). > > Right, having the linuxulator in the kernel is all but > unavoidable. But for old FreeBSD apps running on newer versions of > FreeBSD, we can do better, and a library-based approach is easier > to maintain and less prone to security problems. It's not running only old apps on a new system, it's running the =20 userland of an old system in a jail of a new system. That's what I'm =20 concerned about (and works currently as we took care about maintaining =20 compatibility in the kernel) and that's what you can not handle with a =20 library-based approach. Bye, Alexander. --=20 You get what you pay for. =09=09-- Gabriel Biel http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071211080216.pb3b95teoggko00o>